Macpherson Hallucination Introduction web.docx copy

Forthcoming in F. Macpherson and D. Platchais (eds.) Hallucination: Philosophy and Psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

The Philosophy and Psychology of Hallucination: An Introduction

Fiona Macpherson

Few phenomena have played such a vital role in shaping philosophical theories as

hallucination, particularly theories in philosophy of mind, perception, and

epistemology. When the ordinary man or woman in the street thinks of

hallucination, a drug-‐fueled bizarre perceptual experience is conventionally what

springs to mind. The traditional philosophical conception of hallucination

encompasses such experience but is broader. The traditional philosophical

conception includes perceptual experiences, identical in nature to experiences that

could be had whilst perceiving the world, save only that they are had whilst not

perceiving. 1 Such experiences might be ones that conform to the conventional

conception of hallucination. One might, when hallucinating, have an experience of

the sort that one would have were pink and green spiders to be crawling over the

text that you are reading. However, they might also be perfectly mundane and be

just like the visual experience I expect you are having now when reading this page.

This mundane form of hallucination is particularly important in philosophy, as

philosophers have often contemplated whether all of one’s perceptual experiences

to date could have been hallucinatory. Might you be the subject of mass deception,

1 As I explain in more detail in section one, I use “perceive” as a success verb to indicate perception rather than hallucination, but I use “perceptual experience” to name the kind of state that occurs in both perception and hallucination. Thus note that hallucinations—states not involved in perceiving the world—are nonetheless typically referred to as “perceptual experiences”. I follow that usage in this introduction.

2

carried out by an evil daemon or by aliens who are artificially stimulating your

brain, trapping you in a merely simulated world? In addition, this philosophical

conception makes room for experiences that, were the subject to take them at face

value, would seem to be perceptual experiences but could never be had when

perceiving, at least when perceiving accurately, simply because the world could

never be as the experience presents it to be. For example, it might be possible to

hallucinate colours that do not and could not exist in the world.2 Or it might be

possible to hallucinate a geometrically impossible spatial configuration3

Although the consequences of the existence of hallucination have been much

explored and debated, alternatives to the traditional philosophical conception of

hallucination have, until recently, received little attention. However, two emerging

strands of research have brought to light other conceptions of hallucination. One of

these is scientific evidence about people who actually hallucinate. Evidence from

psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry has shed light on the functional role and

physiology of actual hallucinations. The second strand is the development of a

philosophical theory of perception known as disjunctivism. Some disjunctivist

theories have as part of their ontology a radically new and different conception of

hallucination.

2 See Crane and Piantanida (1983). One might think that such “novel” colours are not just not actual but impossible if one held an objective physicalist view of colours such as that endorsed by Byrne and Hilbert. They claim, “The best description of a world with a very different physics from our own is that in such a world objects merely look coloured” (1997, p. 282, footnote 8). Furthermore, see ffytche (this volume), who describes anecdotally patients describing their visual hallucinations of colours as being more vivid than those encountered in nonhallucinatory visual experience. 3 One can have illusory experiences that seem to represent “impossible figures”, such as those frequently depicted by Oscar Reutersvärd and M. C. Escher paintings, such as the impossible tribar. Examples of the kind of experience I have in mind are those had when looking at specially created three-‐dimensional objects that, viewed from the right position, give one experiences that seem to represent three-‐dimensional geometrical impossibilities. See Macpherson (2010a). If one hallucinated such an object, it would be an experience that could not be had when perceiving the world accurately.

3

Once these different conceptions of hallucination are made clear we can then

compare and contrast them. We can ask whether there is or could be any evidence

to think that some of them, or all of them, exist or could exist. And we can try to

determine whether the traditional debates about the upshot of the existence, or

possible existence, of hallucination are transformed by these differing conceptions.

Reflection on these different notions of hallucination has the potential to

transform many traditional debates in philosophy concerning the nature of the

mind, perception and our knowledge of the world. It has the potential to radically

alter our approach to, and answers to, traditional philosophical concerns about

knowledge and the mind. In addition, clarifying the different conceptions of

hallucination will be of value to scientists when they are trying to determine the

nature of hallucination in patients, and to clinical medics who are trying to treat

them. The nature of hallucination is therefore of great philosophical, theoretical and

practical importance.

These are the issues that the essays in this book engage with. They are

written by philosophers of many stripes and by scientists. In this introduction, I aim

to achieve a number of goals. I wish to provide an introduction for scientists,

philosophers, and other academics who want to understand the philosophical

debate about perception and hallucination. I aim to explicate a few of the scientific

findings for philosophers and others unfamiliar with the relevant empirical results. I

hope to add to the debate by explaining how I think the scientific results impact on

philosophical concerns and how philosophical theory should impact on the

interpretation of the scientific results. Finally, I aim to explain the fundamental

difference between the view of perception called disjunctivism and the more

traditional common-‐kind view, and I will explore reasons to favour one or other of

two different views of hallucination: the common-‐kind conception and the strict

disjunctive conception that the theories advocate. I also explore other conceptions

of hallucination and the reasons one might have for thinking they exist.

4

To that end, I first outline the traditional conception of hallucination and

provide an overview of the consequences often thought to follow from the existence

of hallucination conceived of in this manner. In particular, I explain the constraints

on theories of perception and perceptual experience that have been thought to

follow from the traditional conception of hallucination, as well as the theories of

perception and perceptual experience that conform to these constraints. In addition,

I outline the challenge to empirical knowledge that the traditional conception of

hallucination engenders. I then examine other notions of hallucination inspired by

the latest scientific work and by disjunctivism. I consider to what extent there is, or

could be, empirical evidence in favour of the existence of the different forms of

hallucination or reasons to think that, even if not actual, such hallucinations are

metaphysically possible. (Metaphysical possibility is to be contrasted with

nomological possibility. “Nomological possibility” refers to what is possible given

that the natural laws of this world are held fixed, such as the speed of light, the

strength of gravity, and so on. “Metaphysical possibility” refers to what is possible

not only in those circumstances but also in circumstances in which the natural laws

differ from what they actually are.) I also explain what consequences the existence

or possible existence of the nontraditional forms of hallucination may have on

further philosophical theorizing about perception and knowledge. I finish by

considering the different philosophical commitments that underlie different views

of perception and hallucination and reasons to prefer one set over another.

1 Preliminaries

In this section I outline some important terminological issues, conventions, and

assumptions that are used in philosophy, which one needs to appreciate if one is to

understand the debates that follow.

5

For the purposes of this essay, I assume a realist framework. Realism is a

theory that makes both an ontological and an epistemological claim.4 The

ontological claim is that there exists a world that is independent from the concepts,

thoughts, and beliefs that people do or may have. A slightly stronger version of the

claim is that the world has a structure, which thought and belief aim to map or

represent with more or less success. Thus with our thought and language we

typically try to refer to objects, properties, and events that exist in the world

(although of course, we sometimes knowingly refer to objects that do not exist, such

as round squares or the fountain of youth). The realist epistemological claim attests

to the at least partial success of the representation or mapping. We can and do have

some knowledge of the mind-‐independent world and our discourse about the world

can be and is sometimes is true.

Contrasting with realism, idealism in the philosophy of perception is a view

that in a strong form says that the world is mind dependent, and is simply composed

of one’s own, and perhaps others’ or God’s, perceptual experiences. If one is an

idealist, then one has to have a rather idiosyncratic view of hallucination. Cases of

hallucination involve having perceptual experiences, and for the idealist, these also

constitute the world, so there is no question of hallucinations differing from

nonhallucinatory experiences by not matching the world or by not being linked to

the world in the same way. So for the idealist, the experiences that we call

hallucinations are simply the ones that don’t occur in the regular patterns typical of

nonhallucinatory experiences. For example, if one had a visual experience as of a

pink rat materializing in front of one, and one couldn’t feel it, smell it, or hear it, and

no one else who looked had an experience of the rat, then one’s visual experience as

of the pink rat would be anomalous. Hallucinatory experiences, on the idealist view,

are simply ones that do not conform to certain patterns of regularity, which our

other experiences do. There is nothing over and above this that makes them

4 See Haldane and Wright (1993) and Haldane (1993).

6

different from nonhallucinatory experiences. According to the idealist, then, one

could not be hallucinating all one’s life in a completely coherent and regular fashion,

for if one’s experiences were like that, then, according to this theory, they would be,

by definition, not hallucinations. However, I will set aside idealism from here on.

Now that a realist framework is assumed, I turn to consider some more

specific issues about perception. Consider the fact that there are different senses.

One can perceive in many different ways. One can perceive a strawberry by seeing it,

touching it, smelling it, tasting it, and hearing it make a dull thud when it drops on

the floor. In philosophy, the cases of perception typically discussed are cases of

visual perception (seeing), and when hallucination is discussed, the paradigm case is

visual hallucination. But, of course, one can have tactile, auditory, olfactory, and

gustatory hallucinations too. In fact, one can have hallucinations connected with all

the sensory modalities, not just the five well-‐known previously mentioned ones. For

example, one could have proprioceptive or equilibrioceptive hallucinations. In the

study of perception in philosophy, it is frequently assumed that whatever we say

about the case of vision can be carried over unproblematically to the other

modalities. This may be true in many cases; however, one ought to be wary of this

assumption. In psychology, visual and auditory hallucinations are both common

objects of study, but as we will see, psychologists often provide different accounts of

visual and auditory hallucinations.

A number of terminological points now need to be explicated. First, it is

standard in philosophical discussion to use the word “perceive”, and its derivatives

such as “see,” “touch,” “hear,” and so on, as success verbs. For example, if one

visually hallucinates that there is a dagger before one, one does not see a dagger

before one. For one to see a dagger, not only would it have to seem visually to one as

if there were a dagger before one, that is, have a visual experience as of a dagger, but

one must also, in virtue of having that experience, be aware of some real dagger that

exists (or possibly, in the case of looking at very distant objects such as stars, be

7

aware of some object that existed). Thus when one sees a dagger and when one

visually hallucinates a dagger, one has a visual experience as of a dagger. But when

one visually hallucinates a dagger, one does not see a dagger. When one hallucinates,

one might, of course, think that one is seeing (although one need not, if one knows

that one is hallucinating), and one might claim that one is seeing – but one would be

wrong, according to this philosophical usage of the term. For example, in the

Scottish play, when Macbeth hallucinates a bloody dagger floating in the air as he

contemplates killing Duncan, he asks, “Is this a dagger which I see before me?” The

correct philosophical answer would be “No, Macbeth. You do not see a dagger. You

merely seem to see one. You are having a perceptual experience as of one, but you

are hallucinating.” I will abide by this philosophical convention.

A second piece of terminology requiring introduction is “veridical

hallucination”. Perceptual experiences are often thought to be more or less accurate.

Consider, again, having a visual experience as of a dagger. If one is seeing a dagger,

and seeing it as it is, then one’s experience would be, to this extent, accurate. In

virtue of this, we might say that the experience accurately represents a dagger. In

other words, it is veridical.5 When one thinks of visually hallucinating a dagger, the

kind of case that typically springs to mind is one where one hallucinates a dagger,

but there is no dagger before one. In this case, the visual experience had whilst

hallucinating represents a dagger, but it is inaccurate. How the experience

represents the world to be is not how the world is. No doubt, the majority of actual

hallucinations are like this.

5 Susanna Siegel (2006) has explicated at length the notion of accuracy and the notion of representation that is concomitant with it. Whether this is the notion of representation that everyone can agree experiences have, and whether there are other notions of representation that some people think apply to experiences, is a topic of much debate in modern philosophy of perception. In fact there is a debate about whether representation can be captured by accuracy or a seeming condition. See the essays in Hawley and Macpherson (2011), and for an overview see Macpherson (2011). See particularly Pautz (2011) and Travis (2004) for opposing views of different kinds to Siegel.

8

However, we should be careful not to define hallucination as inaccurate

experience for two reasons. One is the possibility of the existence of cases of

veridical hallucination, which will be discussed in this paragraph. The second is the

existence of cases of illusory experience, discussed in the next. Veridical

hallucinations occur when one hallucinates but when one’s experience is accurate.

For example, one could hallucinate a dagger as being in front of one, and completely

unrelatedly and just by chance, there might really be a dagger of the very type that

one is hallucinating in exactly the place where one hallucinates the dagger to be. Of

course, in normal circumstances, the chances of such a case occurring would be

extremely slim, but nothing rules out the possibility of such a case. Indeed, one can

imagine such cases being deliberately brought about. Suppose you are prone to

dagger hallucinations and have described to me in detail what the dagger you

hallucinate always seems to look like. I might procure such a dagger, and the next

time you hallucinate, I might place the dagger in front of you, thus making it the case

that your visual experience accurately represents the world in front of you.

Likewise, we can imagine a scenario in which I place a dagger in front of you and

then cause you to have a hallucination that exactly represents such a dagger by

feeding you a drug or directly stimulating your brain with electrodes or magnetism

or in some other method that makes you hallucinate daggers of exactly that type.

(While we don’t think that neuroscientists can at present create such complex

hallucinations, we do know that they can reliably cause visual hallucinations of

certain basic types in people, and there seems no reason to think that in the future

they will not possess such abilities.) These examples make the possibility of

veridical hallucination clear.

A final terminological issue to bring to the fore is how the term “illusion” is

used. Cases of illusion constitute the second reason we have not to define

hallucinations as instances of inaccurate experience. While the case of veridical

hallucination shows that inaccuracy is not a necessary condition for an experience

9

to be hallucinatory, illusion shows us that it is not sufficient. Illusions are typically

defined in philosophy as occurring when one sees the world, or some object in the

world, but one sees it inaccurately in some respect. For example, consider the

Müller-‐Lyer illusion. The figure produces illusory perception because it produces an

inaccurate experience in us of it. We see the lines in the figure, but we see them

incorrectly. We have an experience that represents the top horizontal line as being

longer than the bottom horizontal line, whereas in fact they are the same length.6 A

frequently cited fact about such cases is that the illusory experience persists even

when one knows that the lines are of equal length, and knows that one is undergoing

an illusion. As defined, when one has an illusory experience, one is perceiving the

world – just inaccurately in one or more respects.

Figure 1.1: The Müller-‐Lyer illusion

In short, cases of perceptual experience can occur in three different

conditions:

6 This is, at least, the standard view of illusions. An alternative view of illusions, inspired by a disjunctivist view of perception, is that in illusions we have accurate experience but form inaccurate beliefs about the world on the basis of that experience. Bill Brewer (2008) has articulated and defended this view, but we will set that view aside here. It is not obvious that Brewer’s view should not be more accurately described as one in which there are no illusions, and that cases typically classified as such are ones in accurate, non-‐illusory experience is involved in perceiving the world together with inaccurate belief formation.

10

(i) veridical perception: accurate perception of the world

(ii) illusion: inaccurate (nonveridical) perception of the world

(iii) hallucination: No perception of the world. Hallucinatory experiences will

typically be inaccurate (nonveridical), but accurate (veridical) hallucinations

are possible.

And when one is in each of these conditions, it is possible for one to (a) truly believe

that one is in that condition, (b) falsely believe that one is in that condition, and (c)

be agnostic about whether one is in that condition.

It is worth noting that there may be some instances of having a visual

perceptual experience that are difficult to classify in practice. For example,

sometimes it will be hard to know whether someone is having an illusory

experience, or whether they are accurately perceiving the world but simply forming

false beliefs about it despite their accurate perceptual experience.7 Likewise there

are some cases where it is not clear if one should classify what is taking place as a

hallucination or an illusory experience. For example, consider the Hermann grid.

When one’s eyes roam across the grid, one has an experience as of grey squares

appearing and disappearing on the white intersections between the black squares.

Of course, one realises quickly that one’s experience is not veridical. But is one

inaccurately seeing the white intersections as grey – thus undergoing an illusion – or

is one hallucinating grey squares, on account of the interaction of the grid with one’s

visual system? It is difficult to decide which is the right description of this case, but

that difficulty does not stop the distinction between illusion and hallucination itself

being clear.

7 See Macpherson (2012).

11

Figure 1.2: The Hermann grid

If it is right to think that the grey squares experienced when looking at the

Hermann grid are hallucinatory, then this case brings out a feature of actual

hallucinations not traditionally considered by philosophers. When philosophers talk

of hallucinations, they typically imagine cases in which one’s perceptual experience

is completely hallucinatory. That is, they imagine that one is seeing nothing and that

each element of one’s perceptual experience is hallucinatory. In fact, in many

hallucinations that actually occur, a subject’s experience is only partially

hallucinatory in the sense that some elements of the perceptual experience are

hallucinatory, but others are not. For example, a subject might be seeing the room in

which she sits, and doing so accurately, except for the fact that she is hallucinating a

cat sitting on the carpet. Another case worthy of note is that which is often called

“having an afterimage”. If one stares at a patch of colour and then looks at a white

surface, one has an inaccurate experience as of a patch of the same shape as the one

stared at originally but in the complementary colour. Many philosophers would, I

think rightly, count such cases as being cases of hallucination. If that is right then

they are further instances of partial hallucinations, for one still sees the world when

having an afterimage. While I will mostly discuss experiences that are total

hallucinations, it is worth bearing such partial hallucinations in mind, in particular

12

when one is assessing different conceptions of hallucination and the theories of

perception that are associated with each of them.

2 The Traditional View of Perception and Hallucination

The traditional view of hallucination is best explicated hand in hand with traditional

views of perception and perceptual experience, which have recently come to be

known as “common-‐kind” theories.8 Let us start with the basic scientific facts about

a typical case of perception, which all philosophical theories of perception (bar

idealism) would be, and should be, happy to endorse.

In a typical case of seeing, light reflects off objects and enters our eyes,

stimulating retinal cells. These cells are connected via the optic nerve to neurons in

the brain that they in turn stimulate. Although neurons in many parts of the brain

are stimulated in this way, a major neural pathway runs from the optic nerve, via the

lateral geniculate nucleus, to the primary visual cortex, located towards the back of

the head in the occipital lobe. The neurons in the visual cortex then go on to

stimulate neurons in a large number of brain regions. During this process, arguably

when the visual cortex is being stimulated, a visual experience occurs.9 A visual

experience is a conscious mental state, which is to say that there is “something that

it is like” to be in that state, to use a well-‐worn phrase coined by Thomas Nagel

(1974), and equivalently, it is to say that the state has phenomenal character.

What is the relationship between the brain states and the experience?

Common-‐kind theorists say different things. According to some, brain states cause

distinct perceptual experiences to come into existence – experiences that are 8 The “common-‐kind” terminology has only quite recently come to refer to a class of theories that share certain commitments that distinguish them from disjunctivism. Before disjunctivism’s recent entry into the philosophical scene, common-‐kind theories were the only theories in the literature, and there was no particular collective name for them as such. 9 See Crick and Koch (1998).

13

themselves nonphysical states. Such people are committed to a form of dualism.

According to others, some brain states somehow just are experiences. There are,

broadly speaking, two versions of this view. One claims that the stuff that the brain

is made of is important in explaining how this is so. Great disagreement divides

theorists who advocate this sort of approach concerning what features of physical

stuff are important. The second view claims that mental states are the states that

they are in virtue of their functional role. To cite an overly simplistic example, a pain

state might be any state that is typically caused by bodily damage and gives rise to

desires to avoid the pain stimulus, which in turn give rise to avoidance behaviour.

Brain states have functional roles too, and according to this theory, if a mental state

plays the same functional role as a brain state, then we have good reason to identify

the mental state with the brain state or, in a slight variant of the view, to identify the

mental state with the higher-‐order state of having some physical state play the role

in question.

Despite their disagreement about the relationship between the experience

and the brain, common-‐kind theorists agree on certain key facts:

(i) A perceptual experience occurs at the end of a causal chain that, in typical

cases of seeing, starts with light reflecting off an object and then hitting

the eye, leading to various brain states being instantiated, leading to the

occurrence of a visual experience.

(ii) One can cause a perceptual experience to come into existence by

recreating any of the states along that causal chain (so long as they in turn

cause the rest of the states in the causal chain to come into existence). In

particular, by stimulating the brain in the right way, one can cause a

perceptual experience to occur. In this case, one re-‐creates the end state

of the causal chain without perception of the world occurring. This is to

create a hallucination.

14

(iii) A perceptual experience caused by perception of the world, and a

perceptual experience caused by merely stimulating the brain in the way

that it would have been stimulated by perception of the world, produce

experiences of the same type in respect of what they represent and in

respect of their conscious nature, that is to say, their phenomenal

character. I will express this idea by saying that the experiences are of the

“same mental type.” These experiences are thus alike, bar the fact that one

is had whilst perceiving the world and one is had whilst hallucinating.

The experiences are intrinsically the same and differ only in their

different origins or in the different casual relationships that they bear to

the world.

To sum up, the traditional notion of hallucination, what I will call the

“common-‐kind view of hallucination” arises from conceiving of perception in the

way that common-‐kind theorists do. Common-‐kind theorists hold that states of the

same mental type can occur in perception and hallucination. More particularly, they

hold that any experience that could be had when perceiving (accurately or illusorily)

could be had when hallucinating. This is because any way that the brain is

stimulated in a case of perception could be a way that it is stimulated when no

perception occurs, thus re-‐creating the same end state, which they hold to be

identical with one’s perceptual experience. (As an aside, note that the converse may

not be true. There may be ways of stimulating the brain that produce hallucinations

that cannot be replicated in perception.10 However, from now on I will set that kind

of hallucination aside and focus only on those hallucinations that are counterparts of

experiences had while perceiving.) The traditional common-‐kind conception of

hallucinations, therefore, is that they are of the same mental type as perceptual

10 For example, Crane and Piantanida (1983) induce experiences of novel colors that one could plausibly argue are hallucinations, and they speculate that such experiences cannot be caused by normal perceptual processes for those are restricted by opponent processing.

15

experiences had whilst perceiving the world. The difference between them is simply

that hallucinations are had when not perceiving.

We have just seen how the common-‐kind view of perception entails that one

can re-‐create the same mental type of perceptual experience had during perception

without perception taking place. So we have seen how the common-‐kind theory of

perception motivates the traditional, common-‐kind conception of hallucination.

However, as we will now see, it is often the case that the traditional conception of

hallucination is assumed and then used to argue for the common-‐kind view of

perception. Thus the common kind theory of perception supports the common-‐kind

conception of hallucination, but also vice versa. They are mutually supporting. (Of

course this might give rise to the concern that there is no independent motivation

for either—a thought that will be explored in section four below.)

The famous “argument from hallucination” is used to motivate one particular

form of the common-‐kind theory: the sense-‐data theory. I will elucidate that

argument before going on to look at a variant of that argument that supports

another form of the common-‐kind theory that is more popular today than the sense-‐

data theory: representationalism.

The sense-‐data theory claims that when we have a perceptual experience—

be it one involved in perception or hallucination—we are immediately aware of

nonphysical, mind-‐dependent objects called sense-‐data. These objects are such that

if they appear to us to be some way, then those objects are that way. While

nonmental physical objects like tables and chairs can seem to us to be one way and

yet be another, no appearance-‐reality distinction exists when it comes to sense-‐data.

The sense-‐data are said to resemble and represent the physical mind-‐independent

objects in at least some respects—such as shape, size, and colour. In the case where

we are perceiving the physical mind-‐independent world, the immediate awareness

16

of these sense-‐data allows us to be mediately aware of physical mind-‐independent

objects in the world.

Although the term “sense-‐data” principally refers to mental objects, it has

been, rather confusingly, also used to refer to the immediate objects of perception,

whatever they are—for example, by G. E. Moore. When used in this way, “sense-‐

data” can refer to physical mind-‐dependent objects, or to their surfaces, or to

patterns of light on the retina. However, this latter usage has, for the most part, lost

favour, and sense-‐data are now almost always taken to be the postulated immediate,

nonphysical, mind-‐dependent objects of perception. This is how I will use the term

from now on. Thus one should note that sense-‐data are not to be identified with the

patterns of light on the retina, the early visual signals or representations in the

brain, or brain states. Unlike these, sense-‐data are nonphysical objects in the mind

that we are aware of. They have many of the properties that the objects we typically

take ourselves to be aware of, like tables and chairs, have—they have shapes and

sizes and colours—but not others, such as the property of being made of wood or

being a chair. Although sense-‐data have properties like brownness and squareness,

they do not exist in physical space. They inhabit the realm of each person’s mind.

Many people have thought that a theory that postulates queer metaphysical

entities like sense-‐data has a high cost to bear. So why in the past did so many

people believe such a theory? (Sense-‐data theory was the dominant theory in the

first half of the twentieth century and arguably for some time before that.) The

answer is that the argument from hallucination was thought to be an exceptionally

powerful reason to believe that it was true. Before going on to examine that

argument, we will consider briefly the distinction between mediate and immediate

perception and mediate and immediate awareness.

What is it to perceive immediately, and what is it to perceive mediately? If

one perceives an object immediately, then one perceives it without perceiving any

17

other, intermediary, object. And if one perceives an object mediately, one perceives

that object in virtue of perceiving some other, intermediary object. (The same goes,

mutatis mutandis, for mediate and immediate awareness.)

We typically think that perception is immediate. I see tables and chairs,

daggers and people, but not in virtue of seeing other things. Thus it is the notion of

mediate perception that requires further elucidation. Are there any examples of

mediate perception that we know from everyday life, outside of philosophical

theorizing, which can help us understand this notion? I believe that there are. One

example is perceiving myself in virtue of perceiving my reflection in a mirror. A

second is perceiving Partick Thistle football team by perceiving the television screen

showing the match they are playing in. Although in our more reflective moments we

are aware that we are not directly seeing our visage or our team scoring a goal, we

often don’t give this a second thought, and all our attention is focused on the

mediate object. Likewise the sense-‐data theorist will say that normally we don’t

think about or pay attention to our sense-‐data, focusing only on the mediate objects

in the physical world; but in our more reflective moments, we can come to

appreciate that in fact we are only aware of such objects in virtue of being aware of

sense-‐data.

The sense-‐data theory, with its rich ontology, comprising both mind-‐

independent physical objects and mind-‐dependent nonphysical objects (sense-‐

data), is motivated by the argument from hallucination, in which the notion of

hallucination in play is the common-‐kind conception. Recall that this was that

hallucinations are phenomenally and representationally just like experiences

involved in perceiving the world, and so are of the same mental type. The argument

from hallucination can be rendered as follows:

Premise 1 When I hallucinate, I am not aware of any mind-‐independent,

physical object.

18

Premise 2 When I hallucinate, I am nonetheless aware of something.

Conclusion 1 When I hallucinate, I must be aware of a mind-‐dependent,

nonphysical mental object—a sense-‐datum.

Premise 3 Experiences that are phenomenally indistinguishable are of

exactly the same type, qua mental state.

Premise 4 If two experiences are of exactly the same type, qua mental

state, and one involves being aware of a mind-‐dependent,

nonphysical object, then the other also does.

Premise 5 For every nonhallucinatory experience there is a phenomenally

identical hallucinatory experience.

Conclusion 2 All perceptual experience, hallucinatory and nonhallucinatory,

involves awareness of a mind-‐dependent, nonphysical object—

a sense-‐datum.

The argument is valid (thus if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also

be true), but the conclusion is true only if all the premises are true. And almost every

premise of this argument has been questioned, with the possible exception of the

first.

Premise 2 is one of the most important premises in the argument. It can be

challenged by claiming that although when we hallucinate we seem to be aware of

something, perhaps it only just seems as if we are aware of something. Perhaps we

are really aware of nothing. In truth it can be hard to decide between premise 2 and

the thought that we are aware of nothing in hallucination, although defenders of

both sides often loudly proclaim that their view is obviously correct. Suppose that

you hallucinate a patch of red. You can have such a hallucination—of the afterimage

variety—by staring at a patch of green for about a minute and then blinking a few

times and looking at a white wall, whereupon you should experience an afterimage

19

of a red patch. The phenomenal character of such a hallucination can be intense and

vivid, particularly when one creates special conditions for producing afterimage

experiences. For example, if one creates a black boundary on a white piece of paper

of the right shape and size so that one’s afterimage seems to fit perfectly within the

boundary when one faces it, then one’s afterimage is particularly intense.11 Fixate on

the cross in the centre of the green patch in figure 1.3 for at least one minute, then

blink a few times, and then fixate on the cross in the middle of the white patch

surrounded by the black square.

Figure 1.3: A stimulus for generating strong afterimages

From the first-‐person point of view, it is exceedingly tempting to think that

you are aware of a pink patch, particularly because, when having a strong

afterimage, it seems just like what it is like to be aware of a pink patch when you are

seeing. (Weaker afterimages are like seeing unsaturated or slightly transparent

patches.) One might think that if there is awareness of a patch of pink in the case of

perceiving pink, and it seems to you just exactly the same in the hallucinatory case,

then it involves awareness of a patch of pink too. What more might there be to being

aware of a patch of pink if not its seeming that way to you? Moreover, when having

11 See Daw (1962).

20

such after-‐images, people report being aware of a patch of pink. Are we to tell them

that they are wrong about their own minds? And how else do we explain that they

report a patch of pink, rather than some other colour? However, one has to

recognise that if such reports are correct, such patches of pink are not physical,

mind-‐independent patches of pinkness. And they are certainly not patches of

pinkness in the brain, which resolutely remains shades of grey. If there are such

patches of pink, then they really are peculiar mental objects that clearly don’t

inhabit physical public space. In light of the postulation of these metaphysically

peculiar objects, the opposing view—that one merely seems to be aware of a patch

of pink in the hallucinatory case—can start to seem more attractive.

Those who believe that we should reject premise 2 can nonetheless construct

another version of the argument from hallucination, which does not have the sense-‐

data theory of perception as its conclusion but has a claim consistent with the other

main form of the common-‐kind theory—a representationalist common-‐kind

theory—as its conclusion. This argument runs as follows:

Premise 1 When I hallucinate, I am not aware of the mind-‐independent

world.

Premise 2 When I hallucinate, nonetheless the world perceptually seems

to be a certain way.

Premise 3 If I am in a state in which the world perceptually seems to be a

certain way, but I am not aware of the mind-‐independent

world, then I am in a state that perceptually represents the

world to be a certain way.

Conclusion 1 When I hallucinate, I am in a state that represents the world to

be a certain way.

21

Premise 4 Experiences that are phenomenally indistinguishable are of

exactly the same type, qua mental state.

Premise 5 If two experiences are of exactly the same type, qua mental

state, and one involves representing the world to be a certain

way, then the other does too.

Premise 6 For every nonhallucinatory experience there is a phenomenally

indistinguishable hallucinatory experience.

Conclusion 2 All perceptual experience, hallucinatory and nonhallucinatory,

involves having a perceptual experience that represents the

world to be a certain way.

Conclusion 3 For every nonhallucinatory experience that represents the

world to be a certain way there is a hallucinatory experience

that represents it to be that way too.

Common-‐kind representationalism is perhaps the most widely held theory of

perception today. According to that view, perceptual experiences represent the

world to be a certain way—where the notion of representation is spelled out in

terms of accuracy conditions (as discussed in section 1) or in terms of how things

perceptually seem to a subject.12 In addition, it says that the same mental type of

experience is had in hallucination and perception. (By calling this view “common-‐

kind representationalism,” I wish to contrast it with a view whose commitment is

just to the minimal claim that at least some experiences represent the world. It is

possible to hold such a view and not be a common-‐kind theorist.)

Common-‐kind representationalism differs from sense-‐data theory.

Although on both views when one has a perceptual experience the world is

represented, on the common-‐kind representationalist view an experience does not 12 See footnote 5.

22

consist of being aware of mental objects or sense-‐data. One particular variety of

common-‐kind representationalism, popular of late, consists of the further claim that

one is simply aware of what the state represents: the apparent physical world

around one. It claims that all mental aspects of perceptual experience are

representational, and thus perceptual representation can explain the nature of

phenomenal character.13 Phenomenal character is taken to be identical to, or to

supervene on, the representational content of experience.14 So popular is this view

that it, and it alone, is sometimes referred to by the name “representationalism”. It is

also known as “strong representationalism.” However, in this essay I use

“representationalism” to refer to the more general type of common-‐kind theory that

may be held with or without these extra commitments.

Contrasting with strong representationalism is the common-‐kind

representationalist view that the phenomenal character of experience is at least to

some degree independent of what one’s experience represents. One version of this

view is that phenomenal character is a property of experience that one can be aware

of in addition to, and independently of, what the experience represents, for it can

represent different things in different circumstances, and indeed in some

circumstancs it may not represent anything at all. This view of experience is quite

like that of the sense-‐datum view for both posit awareness of something over and

above what the experience represents. However, this view—sometimes called the

qualia view—insists that, in addition to what the experience represents, we are

aware only of the properties of experience, that can (but needn’t) represent the

13 Recent proponents of this view include Tye (1995), Dretske (1995) and Lycan (1996). See also Macpherson and Platchias (forthcoming). 14 Supervenience is a metaphysical relation that comes in different specific kinds, but common to all is the idea that if one group of properties supervenes on another, then there can be no difference in the supervenient properties without a difference in those that they supervene on – the subvenient properties. Sometimes it is also specified that the supervenient properties must in some way be dependent on the subvenient properties and not vice versa.

23

physical world. This is unlike the sense-‐data view according to which we are, in

addition, aware in experience of mental objects and their properties.

Common-‐kind representationalists can hold a variety of positions concerning

the relation between experiential states and physical brain states. They can be

physicalist or dualist. However, a perceived virtue of the theory is that it is possible

for it to be compatible with physicalism. Among the physicalist versions of the view

are, on the one hand, those that hold the mental states of a person are determined

by the intrinsic nature of that person’s brain and, on the other, those that hold that

the relations that brain states bear to things outside the body is vital. This latter

view arises because many theories of representation claim that what a brain state

represents is determined crucially by causal, counterfactual, historical, or

evolutionary relations that a type of brain state bears to the things that it

represents, and that it is what the brain state represents that determines what kind

of mental state it is.

This second argument from hallucination seems more plausible than the first.

The first two premises appear to be true. The third premise is a common definition

of perceptual representation, although not agreed on by all (see note 5). The most

serious attempt to undermine the conclusion, I believe, comes from denying the

truth of premise 4. This is the premise that disjunctivists deny. I will explore that

position in section 4.

To summarise this section, common-‐kind theories of perception hold that the

experiences had in perception are, qua mental states, exactly the same type as those

had in hallucination. The difference between them is just that one is had when

hallucinating, and the other when perceiving. The sense-‐data theory form of the

common-‐kind theory takes these perceptual experiences to consist in a direct

awareness of nonphysical, mind-‐dependent objects that represent the world. Sense-‐

data theorists therefore take perceptual experiences to be nonphysical mental states

24

that are caused by brain states. They are dualists, for they believe that there are

distinctive mental and nonmental (physical) objects or properties. The

representationalist version of the common-‐kind theory takes experiences to consist

in perceptual states that represent the world. These representational states are

often held to be identical to brain states, thus allowing representationalists to resist

dualism and hold a physicalist view. One can see that whether or not one agrees

with common-‐kind theories, the motivation for them stems from the common-‐kind

conception of hallucination – that hallucination is the same kind of perceptual

experience, qua mental state, that is had when perceiving the world.

The common-‐kind theories therefore explain the difference between cases of

perception and cases of hallucination not by reference to the nature of the

perceptual experiences had in each but, typically, by means of the differing origin of

the experiences or their relation to the world. The most well-‐known theory that

explains the difference in this manner is the causal theory of perception, which is

very frequently used to supplement the common-‐kind theory. The causal theory

claims that

A subject S sees an object O if and only if

(1) S has a visual experience E that represents O, and

(2) E is caused in an appropriate manner by O.

Much philosophical labour has gone into spelling out to what extent accurate

representation of O is required and what account of suitable causation can be

given.15 But we can ignore the details of this debate for our purposes. We turn now

to consider the epistemological implications of the common-‐kind conception of

hallucination.

15 See e.g. Lewis (1980).

25

3 The Epistemological Upshot of the Common-‐Kind Conception of

Hallucination

The common-‐kind conception of hallucination has been used to motivate skepticism.

Indeed, the argument that uses this notion of hallucination is perhaps the most

famous argument in all philosophy. Descartes, in his meditations, entertains the

thought that an evil dæmon or genius “of the utmost power and cunning has

employed all his energies in order to deceive me”. He imagines that at least as part

of this deception, the dæmon has been deceiving his senses by causing him to

hallucinate. At the same time, we are asked to consider that these hallucinations

may not correspond to the way reality really is. In consequence, Descartes asks us to

consider how we know that the world around us is as we believe it to be. How do we

know that we are not merely hallucinating the existence of such a world, for couldn’t

we undergo the same perceptual experience when hallucinating that we do when

perceiving? Modern philosophical versions of the idea consider whether we might

be a brain in a vat stimulated into hallucinating by an evil scientist. Versions of this

idea also occur in popular culture, notably, for example, in the film The Matrix.

Philosophers have formulated Descartes’s arguments in many ways. One way

is as follows:

Premise 1 When I perceive and when I hallucinate, I have the same type

of perceptual experience, qua mental state.

Premise 2 My hallucination doesn’t give me knowledge of how the world

is around me.

Premise 3 If two perceptual experiences are the same, qua mental states,

and one cannot give you knowledge of the world around you,

then the other cannot.

26

Conclusion My perceptual experience involved in perception cannot give

me knowledge of the world around me.

Skepticism of the sort engendered by the common-‐kind notion of hallucination at

play in these arguments has been challenged in many ways. Premise 3 has been

challenged by externalists, who claim that having one type of mental state on some

occasions can fail to give one knowledge, yet having the same type on other

occasions can provide knowledge. Differing claims about the circumstances in which

having a mental state provides knowledge yield different forms of externalism.

One externalist view, for example, is known as “sensitivity”. According to this

view, an experience can give one knowledge only if it leads to the formation of a

belief that is true and is sensitive, in a particular way, to the truth and falsity of what

is believed. To explain in what way your true belief must be sensitive, imagine a

range of circumstances that are not too different from those that obtain in the actual

world, and imagine that in those circumstances what you actually believe is false. If,

in all those not too different circumstances, you would no longer hold the belief in

question, then your belief is sensitive to the truth or falsity of what is believed, and

in the actual world, you know what you believe. If you aren’t sensitive in that way,

then you don’t know. Philosophers would express this thought by saying that your

belief is sensitive if, in the nearest possible worlds in which what is believed is false,

you would no longer hold the belief. Another externalist view is “safety”, which

claims that an experience can give one knowledge only if it leads to the formation of

a belief that is such that in most of the nearby possible worlds in which one holds

the belief, the belief is true.16 We can now see why these views reject premise 3. In

both of these views, one instance of a particular kind of belief—for example, the

kind of belief that involves holding it to be true that there is tea in the teapot—could

be safe and/or sensitive and hence amount to knowledge while another instance

would fall short. Suppose now, as is plausible on the common-‐kind view, that 16 For a survey of such positions, see Pritchard (2008).

27

instances, qua mental state, of the same kind of experience caused these beliefs—

such as the visual experience as of steam rising from the teapot’s spout. One

instance of that experience would not provide knowledge, but the other would.

Externalists often claim that I can know something even if I don’t know that I

know it because I can’t rule out that I am hallucinating. They claim that requiring

that I know that I know something, and hence requiring that I know that I am not

hallucinating, is too strong a condition to place on the conditions required for

knowledge and that a sensitivity or safety condition is all that is required.

Some people have wished to resist skepticism but are unsatisfied with the

ways in which externalism does so. Fortunately, for such people, alternative views of

hallucination offer a chance of showing other ways to resist the skeptical conclusion.

4 Disjunctivism and Alternative Views of Hallucination

Recall the common-‐kind conception of hallucination, according to which

hallucination involves having exactly the same kind of perceptual experience, qua

mental state, as one has in perception. As we saw in section 2, backing for this view

comes from the thought that perceptual experiences involved in perceiving occur at

the end of a causal chain of events—and you could create the same perceptual

experiences by re-‐creating the conditions at the end of the chain. One could do this

either by directly creating just those end conditions or by creating any intermediate

step in the chain. The evidence that is often cited for thinking that this is true is (a)

the nomological possibility of such cases and (b) the actual existence of

hallucinations, which for the traditional philosopher will include the following:

§ clinical hallucinations (hallucinations that occur in nonnormal subjects

suffering from recognised psychological abnormalities, such as people with

28

Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenics, and people suffering from delusions of

various kinds)

§ dream experiences

§ afterimages

But does the existence of these kinds of cases really back up the traditional common-‐

kind view of hallucination? One might argue not. One might argue that they do so

only if you take a very particular view of them. This is how “experiential

disjunctivists” argue. They claim that only if one accepts the common-‐kind theory of

perception will one be tempted to adopt the common-‐kind conception of

hallucination. Thus one doesn’t have to hold that hallucination involves the very

same type of perceptual experience that one has in veridical perception. And one

may even go on to try to deny the nomological or metaphysical possibility of cases of

hallucination as the common-‐kind theorist conceives of them.

According to experiential disjunctivists, a different conception of

hallucination has been overlooked. This alternative is that when one hallucinates,

one goes into a state wherein it is not possible to know, by introspection alone, that

one is not veridically perceiving—but, qua mental state, that is all that is the case.

When one is in such a state, one is said to be in a state that possesses the “negative

epistemic property”. The reason for saying that in hallucination it is not possible to

know by introspection alone that one is not veridically perceiving is to allow for the

existence of some cases of hallucination where we come to know by other means

that we are hallucinating. In such cases, we may come to know because someone

tells us – perhaps a trusted doctor. Or we may notice anomalies among our

experience. For example, we may be unable to touch the dagger that visually seems

to us to be floating in midair. Or we may notice bizarre features of our experience

that we think are better explained by hallucination than by the fact that the world

has changed to allow such things to be possible—for example, so that daggers can

hover in midair. In these cases we are not using introspection alone in coming to

29

know that we are hallucinating. We are using it together with general knowledge of

the way the world is and the way experiences ought to be consistent and so forth.

Such cases can still count as hallucinations for the disjunctivist. for these cases could

still be ones where reflection on the nature of the experience alone, without

additional general knowledge of contingent facts about the world, is such that it is

not possible for the subject to know that he or she is not perceiving.

The lynchpin of the disjunctive theory is that one does not go into the same

perceptual experiential state, qua mental state, when hallucinating that one would

go into were one perceiving what one seems to be perceiving. Of course, the state

that one goes into when one perceives the world also has the negative epistemic

property, but it has other mental properties besides that, which the hallucination

state lacks. The nonhallucinatory state is a state of perceiving, and it is also a state

that has a certain phenomenal character, and depending on what else one thinks, it

may mental properties as well. The hallucinatory state lacks those properties.17

Moreover, according to experiential disjunctivism, hallucinatory states would

not be the same type of state, qua mental state, as states involved in perceiving, even

if the brain states involved in perception and hallucination were identical. This is

because, according to the disjunctivist, perception doesn’t happen when you have

the right causal connections between an appropriate perceptual experience and the

world. Perceptual experience is not the end state in a causal chain. Rather, one’s

perceptual experience comprises the whole process: what goes on in your head, the

things in the world seen, and any causal connections between the latter and the

former. So even if the whole brain is in the very same state when hallucinating as it

is when perceiving, the occurrence of this brain state does not constitute conditions

sufficient for perceptual experience.

17 See Martin (2004, 2006) and Fish (2008).

30

Many philosophers who hold the common-‐kind view don’t just disagree with

experiential disjunctivism—they find it extremely unpalatable. One reason that may

explain this is that it is not easy to form an intuitively appealing picture of

perception and hallucination as the disjunctivist conceives it. In part this may be

because the common-‐kind view of perception has a strong intuitive pull and has

deep roots within traditional Western philosophy. Thus, to give experiential

disjunctivism as much plausibility as possible, I will try to paint as appealing and

clear a picture of perception and hallucination, as the experiential disjunctivist

conceives of it, by means of elaborating on a metaphor concerning the role of the

brain in perception.

The common-‐kind theorist could think of the brain as a machine that has the

task of producing perceptual experiences, and it is by having these experiences that

we can be aware of the world, at least in certain circumstances, namely, when the

brain is producing the right kind of experience and is causally connected to the

world in the right way. The disjunctivist views the brain’s role differently. One might

think of it as a machine, but not one that produces experiences as output. Rather, the

brain can be thought of as the machinery required to focus and attune a lens in

order to allow us to see. The nature of the machinery and the lens is highly complex

because not only does what we see change all the time, but the conditions for seeing

change too, and the best adjustment of the lens for seeing different things, and for

seeing the same things in different conditions, varies. Thus the brain is constantly

adjusting itself in response to the way the world is based on its principles of

operation. When the brain adjusts itself in the right way in response to the world,

then the brain provides a transparent window onto the world—a lens—allowing the

person whose brain it is to see the world. In this situation, one sees the world

directly; there is nothing else of which one is aware, no representational

intermediary, no machinery of the brain, no lens. In this situation, one has a

perceptual experience of the world, but that experience comprises the objects and

31

properties that you directly see together with the relationship that you bear to

them—the perceptual relation. The perceptual relation obtains because the lighting

conditions are appropriate and because the brain is doing what it needs to do to

allow you access to the world.

Of course, sometimes the brain does not manage this extraordinary feat.

Sometimes the lens is not focused properly, and our window onto the world distorts

our view of the world. When we see in a distorted manner, we are undergoing an

illusion. On other occasions the window on the world remains opaque. In such cases

we don’t see. But during some of these occasions, the brain is in a configuration that

fools us. It fools us by putting us into a state such that we can’t distinguish that state,

by introspection alone, from veridical perception. In other words, we hallucinate.

We are seeing nothing, but the configuration of our brain prevents us from detecting

this by introspection alone. 18

This view is experiential disjunctivism. As it is sometimes put, the view is

that the experience in the “good case” (perception) and the experience in the “bad

case” (hallucination) are not the same type of experience, qua mental state. One is an

experience of seeing the world; the other is an experience that involves not being

able to know, by introspection alone, that one is not perceiving. Experiential

disjunctivists hold that when one is hallucinating one’s experience lacks

phenomenal character altogether, for all there is in common between the

hallucination and its perceptual experiential counterpart, is the negative epistemic

fact. The idea is that when one sees, the phenomenal character of one’s experience—

what it is like to have that experience—is constituted by the properties of the

objects that one sees. The phenomenal character of one’s experience when one

accurately sees a red teapot (the phenomenal redness, say) is constituted by (is

simply) a property of the physical surface of the teapot. In the bad case, there is no

physical patch of red in objective space that one is aware of, and so one’s experience 18 I owe this metaphor to Imogen Dickie, who suggested a form of it in conversation.

32

cannot have that phenomenal character, in fact, it has none at all. This is why the

disjunctivist often emphasises the idea that, when hallucinating, all there is to being

in that state is being unable to tell (by introspection alone) that one is not

perceiving. One is not having an experience with the phenomenal character that one

would have in the good case.

We are now in a position to see what the motivations for experiential

disjunctivism are. First, the view allows that perception of the world can be direct

and immediate. Second, some believe that it allows us to give a naturalistic account

of phenomenal character: phenomenal character is identical with the properties of

physical objects in public space.19

A third motivation, according to some (but not all), is that the view allows us

to overcome skepticism. We can sketch how this view might be thought to do by

considering that as the experiences in the good case and the bad case are held not to

be the same in all mental respects, then there is some reason to think that the

experiences do not possess the same epistemic properties.20 Thus one can think that

the perceptual experience in the good case can give one knowledge of the world

even though the experience in the bad case cannot. Attributing these different

epistemic properties to the experiences might seem unproblematic, for on this view,

the mental states themselves, qua mental states, are very different. Thus epistemic

differences are grounded in experiential mental differences, and an important

19 Fish (2009) argues for this view. 20 In fact, one can hold an epistemic disjunctivst view without being an experiential or phenomenal character disjunctivist simply by holding that the experiences in the good and the bad case have different epistemic value. However, to my mind, epistemic disjunctivism is better motivated if one grounds the epistemic difference in an experiential difference or difference in phenomenal character, because then one has an explanation for the different epistemic value one is attributing to the experiences, and one needn’t become an externalist to reply to skepticism in this manner. For more details of types of disjunctivism and their relation, see Haddock and Macpherson (2008b) and the essays in Haddock and Macpherson (2008a).

33

internalist requirement is met: there is no epistemic difference without a difference

in one’s mental life.

Of course, one can think that disjunctivism does not deliver the goods. Many

complaints against it have been made. One is that disjunctivism does not explain

how direct perception and awareness come about. One might think that

disjunctivism fails to provide a naturalistic explanation of how one can come to be

aware of properties of the external world in perception, even if it has a naturalistic

account of those properties to proffer. Another is that it cannot provide a plausible

account of cases of illusion and cases of partial hallucination—cases that seem to

require partial direct access. A third is that the view does not make good the notion

of “not being able to know (by introspection alone) that one is not perceiving”. All

these issues have been explored at length—see, for example, the essays in Haddock

and Macpherson (2008a) – and fall outside the scope of this introduction.

Last, one might think that disjunctivism does not promise a novel and

satisfying reply to skepticism. This is because, although the theory claims that the

experiences in the good and bad cases are different, these differences are not

manifest to the subject of those experiences, and thus one might think that any

epistemological difference between the states is, in truth, a mere externalist one.

One could think that the subjects themselves cannot have different reasons available

to them to think that the two cases are different—no reason even in principle. Thus

the theory does not promise a good nonexternalist response to skepticism.

Debates concerning whether disjunctivism is a good theory are ongoing. (See

the essays in part II of this volume.) For the purposes of this introduction, however,

we leave this debate behind. We now have enough of an understanding of

disjunctivism to see how reflection on the view, and its varieties, opens up a few

different conceptions or models of hallucination, which could be held independently

of a commitment to disjunctivism.

34

I began the previous section by outlining the common-‐kind view of

hallucination, which is of a state that is the same in all mental respects to its

nonhallucinatory counterpart perceptual state, in particular having the same

phenomenal character. The second view of hallucination, which we have just

encountered when considering disjunctivism, is that when hallucinating, one lacks

an experience with phenomenal character, and in addition, one is simply unable to

know in principle, by reflection alone, that one is not perceiving. Call this the “strict

disjunctive conception” of hallucination.

A third view, not held by disjunctivists, but a possible view of hallucination

inspired by modifying the strict disjunctive conception, can now be discerned. It is

that in hallucination one lacks an experience with any perception-‐like phenomenal

character but believes that one is having a perceptual experience with phenomenal

character, although in principle one could come to know otherwise, by reflection

alone. For example, it could be that were one to pay attention to one’s mental life in

the right way, one would be able to tell. One would be able to notice that really one

was not in an experiential state with perceptual phenomenal character. Call this the

“contingent disjunctive conception” of hallucination.

Finally, by considering the idea behind the contingent disjunctive conception,

that of a misidentified state, I can conceive of a fourth kind of hallucination. This is

not a conception of hallucination that differs from the counterpart nonhallucinatory

perceptual experience in virtue of lacking perception-‐like phenomenal character; it

is one where it has a different perception-‐like phenomenal character to the

counterpart nonhallucinatory perceptual experience, and moreover, the subject of

the state does not appreciate that it so differs. According to this notion of

hallucination, when subjects hallucinate, they don’t have a perceptual experience of

the sort that they would have were they perceiving what they are hallucinating.

Instead the subject is in another mental state that has some perception-‐like

phenomenal character. Candidate mental states are perceptual imaginings or

35

perceptual rememberings. To focus on the case of visual hallucination, the idea is

that the subject is visually imagining or visually remembering but goes wrong by

identifying that state as being a perceptual experience when it is not. Visual

imaginings and visual rememberings are thought to be different from perceptual

experience at least in respect of their liveliness or vivacity of phenomenal character,

which is said to be weaker than that of perceptual experience.21 They may be

different in other respects too. These hallucinations could be such that although the

subject misidentifies the nature of their experience by introspection, it might not be

in principle impossible for the subject to come to notice the misidentification solely

by reflection on the nature of the subject’s mental state. Call this conception of

hallucinations the “imagery/memory” one.

With these three further conceptions of hallucination now articulated, in

addition to the common-‐kind conception, we can see why someone might say that

the existence of the following cases of actual hallucinations does not show that

hallucinations of the common-‐kind variety exist:

§ clinical hallucinations (hallucinations that occur in nonnormal subjects

suffering from recognised psychological abnormalities, such as people with

Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenics, and people suffering from delusions of

various kinds)

§ dream experiences

§ afterimages.

This is because these could be cases of the strict disjunctive conception, the

contingent disjunctive conception, or the imagery/memory conception. Given that,

the reason to believe that instances of common-‐kind hallucinations are possible

should not be, as I believe it has sometimes been, the existence of actual instances of

21 This idea was famously proffered by of one of Auld Scotia’s favourite sons, David Hume, and although most people agree that intuitively this seems right, spelling out exactly what liveliness and vivacity amounts to is a difficult task. I will not undertake it here.

36

hallucination. Thus we now simply seem to be in the position of having four

different accounts of the nature of actual hallucinations on the table, without reason

to choose one over the other.

One way forward at this point would be to debate the merits and demerits of

the common-‐kind and disjunctive theories. However, another possibility would be

to see if psychology and neuroscience can be of assistance, for these disciplines have

started to investigate actual hallucinations. Moreover, they claim that they have

evidence that shows the existence of different sorts of hallucination. Clearly this

evidence might be relevant to the philosophical debate. In turn, the four conceptions

of hallucination that we have identified via philosophical theorizing might be of

interest to psychologists and neuroscientists because, to my knowledge, scientists

have not considered all four conceptions—only two of them. Thus scientists should

welcome the elucidation of conceptions of hallucination in addition to those they

have thus far considered, for those conceptions are potentially the right ones of

some actual hallucinations. If scientists want to be able to determine the nature of

particular instances of actual hallucinations, then they should make sure that their

evidence rules out all but one of the four models of hallucination that I have just

articulated.

5 The Role of Psychology and Neuroscience

Consider again the four conceptions of hallucination that I have identified:

(1) the common-‐kind conception

(2) the strict disjunctive conception

(3) the contingent disjunctive conception

(4) the imagery/memory conception

37

I believe that when scientists and clinical medics have considered the nature of

hallucinations to date, they have considered only conceptions (1) and (4). And they

have tried to determine whether instances (or certain classes) of hallucinations are

of type (1) or type (4). I know of no accounts of hallucination in the scientific

literature that consider other conceptions. When I have explained models (2) and

(3) to scientists and clinicians in papers delivered at conferences, their reaction has

confirmed this.22 In fact, some clinicians expressed moral distaste for conceptions

(2) and (3), on grounds I will explain later in this section.

One psychologist who argues for the existence of the common-‐kind

hallucination is Dominic ffytche (this volume). He claims that hallucinations in

Charles Bonnet syndrome, namely, visual hallucinations found in subjects soon after

serious deterioration in, or complete loss of, their vision, are of type (1). These

hallucinations are often rich and detailed and have bizarre content. In line with my

earlier claim that scientists consider only conceptions (1) and (4) of hallucination,

ffytche considers whether Charles Bonnet hallucinations are instances of visual

imagery or visual memory, which he claims are known to be linked to activity in the

frontal and parietal lobes, or instances of visual experiences, which he claims are

known to be linked to activity in visual cortical areas. He presents evidence that the

brain activity underlying these hallucinations is spontaneous activity in the visual

cortex, which, by his lights, provides evidence for these hallucinations being

instances of perceptual experiences, rather than visual imagery.

If one is confident that one can correlate perceptual experiences—or, more

plausibly, perceptual experiences in a certain modality—with activity in one area of

the brain and instances of perceptual imagery/memory in that modality with 22 Macpherson, F. (September 2010), “On the Origin of Hallucination: Philosophical Perspectives,” invited paper, symposium entitled “On the Origin of Hallucination,” 2nd Meeting of the Federation of the European Societies of Neuropsychology (FESN), Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Macpherson, F. (April 2010) “Hallucinations: A Philosophical Perspective,” invited paper at a European Science Foundation workshop on the neural and cognitive basis of hallucinations, University of Granada, Spain.

38

activity in a different part of the brain, then one can empirically determine which

type of hallucinations are occurring on certain occasions by determining what brain

activity is occurring. I will return to the question of whether one is right to think that

one can establish such correlations. For now, note that this is a common

methodology adopted by psychologists when trying to determine whether certain

hallucinations are of type (1) or type (4).

Richard Bentall and Filippo Varese (this volume) look for this type of

evidence in auditory hallucinations – a type of hallucination that frequently occurs

in schizophrenia. They want to determine whether auditory hallucinations consist of

auditory experiences of voices or of misattributions of people’s own inner speech,

which they classify as being a kind of auditory imagery. While some brain imaging

studies favour of the latter view, namely, that type (4) hallucinations are occurring,

overall the results are unclear. Bentall and Varese attribute the lack of clear

evidence to “methodological challenges and oversimplistic thinking about the

nature of inner speech.” I suspect that they believe that while inner speech and brain

activity have not been accurately correlated to date, such correlations could be

established with further effort and then clearer results could be obtained.

Given that those correlations (if indeed they exist) have not yet been

identified, Bentall and Varese investigate another way to determine whether

auditory hallucinations are of type (1) or type (4): by using behavioural evidence.

They find that, compared to people who lack auditory hallucinations, people who

have auditory hallucinations are (a) more likely to report that an external voice is

present when none is there during presentation of certain stimuli, such as white

noise; (b) less good at recalling whether certain words were generated by

themselves, by others, or by neither; and (c) less good at identifying distorted

versions of their own voice, especially when the content of the speech is derogatory.

This suggests that hallucinators are less good at determining whether or not an

experience is generated by themselves. This is known as “source monitoring”. The

39

lack of good source monitoring in auditory hallucinators provides some, although

not conclusive, evidence for the view that auditory hallucinations arise on account of

a failure to identify auditory imagery—in these cases, self-‐generated inner speech—

as being just that. At least it provides evidence for that view over the hypothesis that

the patients are undergoing perceptual auditory experiences of the sort they would

have if hearing another person speak out loud.

To summarise, on the assumption that we are only trying to decide between

(1), the common-‐kind conception of hallucination, and (4), the imagery/memory

conception of hallucination, two possible sorts of evidence might weigh in favour of

one rather than the other: evidence from what brain state the person is in and

behavioural evidence. The scientific evidence to date suggests that if choosing

between these two options, then in some cases we should favour (1), in others (4).

Note, in addition, that if there are hallucinations of type (4), then a particular

method of treatment for such hallucinations becomes worth investigating: teaching

people to be better at introspecting their experience and determining whether it is

imagery and/or whether such imagery is self-‐generated. Whether such a treatment

would be effective for type (4) hallucinations is an empirical matter, but in principle,

it could not be used to treat type (1) hallucinations.23

As the attentive reader will have noted, I have stressed that the evidence and

methodologies of scientists used to determine the nature of hallucinations work

23 This is not to say that other introspective methods might not be able to give subjects insight into when they were having type (1) hallucinations, dependent on the contingencies of the world. For example, suppose it turned out that a person’s hallucinations were all Lilliputian hallucinations, that is, hallucinations of little people. (In fact, scientists claim that there are subjects who have just these hallucinations. See e.g. Chand and Murthy (2007).) Such a person might be able to learn what was real and what was hallucinated by learning that her hallucinations were only of little people, and knowing that she was unlikely to be in an environment that contained such little people. Note, of course, that this kind of evidence that subjects might have that they were hallucinating would not come from reflection on the nature of their experiences alone (unlike the knowledge that type (4) hallucinators are said to lack). It would come from reflection plus the knowledge that their experiences of little people occurred when and only when they were hallucinating.

40

only when one is deciding in a forced choice, whether the hallucination is of type (1)

or type (4). But we have seen that philosophers have identified four conceptions of

hallucination. Suppose that we are trying, as we should, to determine whether a

hallucination is of type (1), (2), (3), or (4). Can we do so? And can the evidence and

methodologies of science we have considered here be used to do so?

To consider this question, let us temporarily set aside type (2) conceptions of

hallucination. Therefore consider, in the first instance, the following question: can

we determine whether a hallucination is of type (1), type (3), or type (4), supposing

that those are the only conceptions of hallucination that we were choosing between

(in other words, in a forced choice between these alternatives)? I think that the

answer to this question is contingent. There are some ways that the world might

turn out to be that would allow us to have such evidence, but we may be unfortunate

and the world might not turn out that way. I will first demonstrate what evidence

would be informative, before illustrating how the world may not provide us with

evidence one way or the other.

Evidence in favour of type (3) hallucinations, rather than type (1) or type (4),

could be found if one area of the brain correlated with conscious visual experience,

and one area of the brain correlated with visual imagery, and one knew this, and one

found that neither of these regions was active when a subject was hallucinating. In

particular, it would be persuasive if one had evidence that a part of the brain

typically associated with believing—perhaps consciously occurrently believing—

was active. It would be evidence in favour of the only alternative that we are

supposing there to be on the table, namely, that the subject lacks a state with

perceptual-‐like phenomenal character but believes himself or herself to be in such a

state, although the subject could come to know otherwise by introspection alone—a

type (3) hallucination.

41

One might question whether there could ever be such evidence by

questioning whether one could ever establish what the neural correlate of just

visual experience was, as opposed to the correlate of the following disjunction:

either having visual experience or having a type (3) hallucination. Likewise, one

could question whether one could find the neural correlate of conscious visual

imagery as opposed to a type (3) hallucination.

However, in reply, I think that one could establish the neural correlate of just

visual experience and just visual imagery if certain conditions existed. One would

need to be able to discriminate between the presence of both visual experience and

visual imagery from the presence of type (3) hallucination. If the world was

conveniently set up so that behavioural differences existed between the states in

question, of the kind one would expect given the natures of those states, then one

might be able to tell these states apart. For example, on some occasions when

hallucinating someone might change their mind about whether they were having a

perceptual or perceptual-‐like experience, perhaps when prompted, whilst on other

occasions they would not. Such behavioural evidence would be evidence that itself

helped one decide whether a hallucination was of type (1), type (3), or type (4). But,

in addition, it might allow one to correlate different brain activity with each type of

hallucination, allowing one thereafter to determine via brain scanning alone which

type of hallucination was present on a given occasion, and to provide confirmation,

or lack thereof, of the behavioural evidence. As said previously, whether one could

actually do any of this is a contingent matter. It would be no great surprise if the

behaviour associated with type (3) hallucinations was rather similar, or indeed

identical, to that of type (1) and type (4) owing to the likelihood of both states

producing the same beliefs in subjects. However, psychologists are experts at

teasing apart rather similar states, so perhaps some measures could be found.

It is worth noting that someone changing her mind, from believing that she

has a perceptual experience to believing that she does not, will not guarantee that

42

the person is having a type (3) hallucination. This is because someone who is having

a common-‐kind hallucination could (falsely) change her mind about whether she is

having a perceptual experience. Such belief change could be a response to myriad

factors. Therefore, evidence about subjects’ brains and behavior on occasions when

we are confident that they are not having visual or visual-‐like experiences, and

when we are confident that they are having beliefs about visual experiences, may be

the key to seeking firmer evidence of the appropriate sort.

Now let us consider whether we could determine whether a hallucination is

of type (1), (2), (3), or (4). One can imagine finding such evidence. Let me provide

some examples. First, suppose that it has been established that some hallucinations

occur when the visual cortex is active (which leads us to suspect that these are type

(1) hallucinations), and some hallucinations occur when the frontal and parietal

lobes are active (which provides some evidence that these are type (4)

hallucinations), and some occur when only a part of the brain associated with

conscious belief is active (supporting the suggestion that these are type (3)

hallucinations). If we then found that some hallucinations occurred when a very

different pattern of brain activity occurred, then this would provide evidence, albeit

rather weak, that these hallucinations were different, and if type (2) hallucinations

are the only other candidate type, then perhaps we might be tempted to identify

these as type (2) hallucinations. Likewise, if we found behavioural markers for type

(1), (3), and (4) hallucinations and then found hallucinations with a different

behavioural profile, then this again might lead us to suspect that they were of type

(2). In short, some type (2) hallucinations could have a distinct brain correlate and

could produce measurable behavioural differences from types (1), (3), and (4). Thus

it is possible that we could produce positive evidence in favour of type (2)

hallucination being present, although whether the world is as it would need to be for

such evidence to be present is another matter.

43

However, unfortunately, although we have just seen that there could be

positive evidence in favour of type (2) hallucinations, there is good reason to believe

that we could never have evidence to rule out that a type (2) hallucination is

occurring. For example, suppose a person’s brain was active in just the way it would

be were the person perceiving. When I considered whether one could decide

between types (1), (3), and (4), supposing that those were the only possibilities,

then perception-‐identical brain activity and perception-‐identical behaviour counted

in favour of the presence of type (1) hallucination, rather than (3) or (4). However,

when we also consider the possibility of type (2) hallucinations, the situation

changes. If perception-‐identical brain activity occurs, but not perception, then how

could we determine whether a type (1) or a type (2) hallucination was occurring?

According to the common-‐kind theory, being in the same kind of brain state that one

is in when one perceives causes one to have a perceptual experience with the same

phenomenal character that one would have were one perceiving—a type (1)

hallucination. But recall that, according to the disjunctivist, this is not the case.

According to the disjunctivist, if a person is in the very same brain state as he would

have been in when perceiving, he is simply in a state in which it is not possible for

him to know that he is not perceiving by means of introspection alone. He is not in a

state with phenomenal character. He is having a type (2) hallucination. Thus upon

discovery that the brain is undergoing perception-‐like activity in the absence of

perception, there is no evidence from the brain state alone that could determine

whether the hallucination is of type (1) or type (2). Therefore, which type one thinks

is occurring will depend on one’s high-‐level theoretical commitments about the

nature of perception and hallucination—one’s commitments to either the common-‐

kind or the disjunctive theory of perception. Thus the existence of hallucinations in

which the brain is active in the same way as it is in perception could never tell in

favour of the common-‐kind type (1) conception of hallucination over the strict

disjunctivist type (2) conception. Indeed, given that a disjunctivist could believe that

any pattern of brain activity associated with hallucinatory states that a person might

44

have is compatible with that person having a type (2) hallucination, it would seem

that there is no evidence about brain activity which could rule out the possibility

that a type (2) hallucination is occurring on any occasion.

Moreover, disjunctivists will think that the same behavior could be present

whether the subject was having a type (2) hallucination or one of the other types of

hallucination. Thus they could think that no behavioural test could tell apart type (2)

hallucinations from any of the other kinds.

In short, we can never in principle be in a position to rule out that a type (2)

hallucination is occurring, rather than one of the other types of hallucination, on the

basis of empirical evidence. However, if we set type (2) hallucinations to one side

and suppose that we are just trying to determine whether a hallucination is of type

(1), (3) or (4), then it is possible that we could find brain and behavioural evidence

that tells us which it is, in the manner that we have seen psychologists actually do

and in the manner that I outlined earlier in this section.

Given these reflections, it is perhaps no surprise that psychologists,

neuroscientists, and clinicians have not acknowledged hallucinations of type (3),

and, more particularly, of type (2). The relative ease with which one can determine

whether a type (1) or type (4) hallucination is occurring, if those are the only two

possible options, is marked, compared to that required when we broaden the

choices to include type (3) and type (2). However, as we have just seen, all four

conceptions of hallucinations seem possible. Thus, determining which sort of

hallucination is occurring is more difficult than scientists have heretofore

acknowledged, and looks to be impossible if we wish to find empirical evidence that

rules out that a hallucination of type (2) is occurring.

Another reason that may explain why scientists have not considered

hallucinations of type (2) or (3) lies in the response of a clinician when I asked him

why he had never considered whether hallucinations of these types were occurring

45

in his patients. He replied that to do so seemed morally repugnant. He noted that it

would involve disbelieving his patients’ reports about their own experience—

disbelieving them about their own minds. The clinician would have to raise the

possibility to his patients that what they were saying about the nature of their own

minds was false. They were not having perceptual or perceptual-‐like experiences on

occasions when they claimed that they were.

One might wonder why he found that so repugnant. After all, there are

occasions when clinicians tell their patients that they are not perceiving the world

when they think and claim that they are. Clinicians do inform their patients that they

are hallucinating. If it is morally acceptable to do that, which clinicians take it to be

at least in some cases, why would it be wrong to go further and tell the patients that

they were not even having perceptual experiences? After all, one need not suppose

that one’s patients are lying in this situation. They might be trying to report

truthfully on the nature of their mental life but, due to circumstances beyond their

control, be getting it wrong. That too could be explained to these patients.

There are deep issues here to do with the authority that we grant others

about the nature of their own mental lives. This kind of issue can be brought out by

considering a related case: the case of pain. Suppose that someone went to the

doctor complaining of terrible pain in his knee. If the doctor did some tests and then

told the patient that she had good news that he was not in fact suffering pain at all

and should therefore go home, we might think that something very wrong had

occurred. You might think that the patient is the expert on his mental state, not the

doctor, whatever the empirical tests say.

These considerations bring out a key feature that separates the common-‐

kind theory of perception from the disjunctive theory of perception. This feature is a

significant and important philosophical difference that divides the theories. The

common-‐kind view of perception must insist that there are some hallucinations of

46

type (1) or that such hallucinations are at least possible. Their theory of perception

requires such a commitment. They can also allow the actuality and possibility of

types (3) and (4). And, although in theory they could allow for type (2)

hallucinations to be possible, in practice, I believe that many will want to deny their

existence, for doing so provides one reason to favour the common-‐kind theory over

the disjunctive position, as I will explain shortly. The disjunctive theory of

perception endorses the possibility of type (2) hallucinations and can allow that

hallucinations of type (3) and (4) may occur. However, they must insist that

hallucinations of type (1) do not and cannot occur. Given that no possible empirical

evidence would settle whether hallucinations of type (1) are occurring or are

possible, rather than type (2), we must turn to theoretical philosophical reasons for

thinking about which types of hallucination are possible, rather than to science.

What we find when we do so is that the theoretical reasons that underpin thinking

one kind of hallucination rather than the other is possible amount to fundamentally

different worldviews: different sets of initial starting assumptions on which one

builds to construct the rest of one’s philosophical view—different sets of

fundamental assumptions that the common-‐kind and the disjunctivist theories are

based on. So it is to these assumptions that we must now turn to understand what at

core differentiates the common-‐kind view from disjunctivism and on what grounds

we should accept one view rather than the other.

The common-‐kind conception of the world is Cartesian in a certain respect.

According to the Cartesian view, doubts may arise as to the nature of the external

world and our knowledge of it, but serious doubts cannot arise as to whether we

know that we are conscious and know the nature of our mental states. Although

Descartes said, “I think, therefore I exist”, a modern Cartesian might replace this

with “I am conscious, therefore I exist”. Knowledge of one’s own consciousness – of

one’s own phenomenal character – is bedrock. It is the foundational truth—the

place where our knowledge is certain. The Cartesian and the common-‐kind theorist

47

take it that we know our own mind. We know that we have conscious mental states,

and what phenomenal character they have.

I said “serious” doubts cannot arise about our knowledge of these matters, for the

Carteisan can allow that on occasion we may make mistakes. We may not be paying

enough attention, or we may make a snap decision unguided properly by introspection, or

circumstances may arise in which we make contingent trivial errors; we are not infallible.

But when suitably focused, and when we set aside trivial errors, such as inadvertent word

or concept choice, we cannot be wrong about the nature of our own mental experience, in

particular we cannot be wrong regarding the basic question of whether we have it. Thus

the natural view for the Cartesian is that when hallucinating (and not realizing that we are

hallucinating rather than perceiving) we are right that we are having perceptual

experience, just wrong about the way that the world is (or if having a veridical

hallucination we would be right about the way that the world was but we would not know

how it was based on our experience). Thus, type (1) hallucinations fit well with the

Cartesian view.

Although hallucinations of type (3) and type (4) do not sit at ease with the

Cartesian position, the Carteisan and common-kind theorist can try to allow for them.

They can say that these arise in conditions where the kind of errors outlined in the

previous paragraph occur such as lack of attention, and snap judgments not based on

proper introspection. The empirical evidence suggests that there may be many

hallucinations of type (4). A weak point of this theory is that it is highly debatable

whether the kinds of error posited to explain this type of hallucination would explain the

persistence of these hallucinations in individuals who have them. What would be

stopping these individuals from realizing that they were not having perceptual

experiences by simply paying more attention and taking more time to make their

judgments, and thus curing themselves of their hallucinations?

The main point, however, that I wish to make about the Cartesian and common-

kind theory is that to maintain the epistemological view that their theory has regarding

48

the mental realm—that knowledge of the existence of our own consciousness is

foundational and close to infallible—Cartesians and common-kind theorists will want to

deny that hallucinations of type (2) could occur. The common-kind theorist will want to

maintain this epistemological view because the evidence of the existence of type (1)

hallucinations, and hence evidence in favor the common-kind view, comes from

introspective knowledge that we allegedly have that we can have perceptual experience at

times that we nonintrospectively know that we are not perceiving the world, such as when

dreaming and having after-images. Type (2) hallucinations involve “serious” errors as to

whether a mental state is conscious and has perceptual phenomenal character. In many

such cases one will think or judge that one is having a perceptual experience but one will

be wrong. (In some cases one may not do any thinking or judging.) Indeed it is not

possible for one to know though introspection alone that one is not perceiving, so it is not

possible for one to know though introspection that one is not having a perceptual

experience. This is precisely the kind of error that the Cartesian will want to deny is

possible, as will common-kind theorists who wish to maintain the Cartesian view of our

knowledge of our own minds. For the possibility of making such error—and as the

disjunctivist would have it, making such errors in every instance of hallucination—casts

doubt on our claim to know that perceptual experience is possible in the absence of

perception of the world.

In contrast, the disjunctivist conception of perception begins with an

epistemological “modesty,” to use M. G. F. Martin’s term, about our knowledge of our

own experience.24 It does not presuppose that we can tell that we are having a conscious

perceptual experience. It does not presuppose that when we are in a mental state, we can

know whether that state has perceptual phenomenal character. In this respect,

disjunctivism seems to make less strong assumptions about our knowledge than the

Cartesian and common-kind view, and this may seem like a reason to favor this position.

However, it also begins with a strong claim about the external world that the Cartesian

and common-kind theorist do not presuppose, namely, “that some at least of our sensory 24 Martin (2004, 38)

49

episodes are presentations of an experience-independent reality.”25 This is an expression

of Martin’s commitment to naive realism—the view that at least on some occasions we

immediately perceive the world. This view is likely to be accompanied by the further

view that many disjunctivists would endorse, namely, that when immediately perceiving

the world we are in a position, at least, to come to have knowledge about it. (See

McDowell 1994 and, for an overview, Haddock and Macpherson 2008b.)

Thus we are faced with the choice of starting by taking it for granted that we are

in a strong epistemological position with respect to knowledge of our own mental lives,

in particular the facts concerning whether we are having perceptual experiences, or of

starting by taking it for granted that we sometimes accurately perceive a mind-

independent reality, and are thereby in a position to know about the world. It is hard to

adjudicate between these positions and therefore with what basic assumptions one should

make at the point of beginning to theorize about the nature of perception and the world.

M.G. F. Martin (2004, 2006) argues at length in favor of the disjunctive starting

point—one reason in its favor being its claimed epistemological modesty. But one might

resist this. For example, opponents of disjunctivism could claim that it fails to provide a

plausible account of phenomenal character. Recall that disjunctivists claim that though

two experiences may be such that in principle there is no way for the subject to tell apart

the states just by introspection, nonetheless these states can have different phenomenal

characters. This is just the epistemic modesty that they are keen to avow: there will be

cases where we can’t tell apart cases of perception that involve perceptual experiences

with phenomenal character from cases of hallucination in which there is no phenomenal

character. They hold a view where either phenomenal character is not to be identified

with “what it is like” for the subject (for that is the same in the good case and the bad

case, while phenomenal character is not the same) or, if it is, then “what it is like” must

be distinguished from “what it seems like” (for in the good case there is something that it

is like, while in the bad there merely seems to be something that it is like). But one might

25 See Martin (2004, 38).

50

balk at any theory with this consequence. One might think that the theoretical role of

phenomenal character is to capture “what it is like” where this is one and the same as

“what it seems like.” Surely that is the notion of our mental life that concerns us—as

illustrated in the example considered earlier of the inappropriateness of the hypothetical

doctor’s reaction to someone claiming to be in pain, namely, that they should go home for

they merely think that they are in pain.

Further, one may hold that the epistemically modest view raises a skeptical worry

that far outstrips the Cartesian skeptical worry, which is that we may not know anything

about the external world. Surely epistemic modesty—the possibility of error with respect

to our judgment that we are in a state with phenomenal character—raises the specter that

we never know whether we are having perceptual experiences with phenomenal

character, and that we never are. Might we not always just think that we are? Thus might

we be experiential zombies? Faced with the threat of such radical skepticism about our

internal mental lives, one reaction would be to think that we should reject the possibility

of type (2) hallucinations and, with them, disjunctivism.

In my own opinion, it is possible to allow for the possibility of type (2)

hallucinations but fend off the skeptical challenge concerning one’s knowledge of

whether one is in a state with phenomenal character. One can think that cases can exist in

which a person seems to be judging that he is in a state with phenomenal character when

he is not in a phenomenal state and, further, that the person is not be able to know by

reflection alone that he is not in a state with phenomenal character. Yet one might think

that such cases do not show that there cannot be cases in which someone has knowledge

that they are in a state with phenomenal character, when indeed they are, and know that

they know this. If one adopts a disjunctive theory of introspection (not of perception),

then one can think that when one is in a state with phenomenal character, one can have

direct access to, or acquaintance with, that character and, by virtue of that access, know

that one is in such a state (and know that one knows). And this can be so even if there can

be states in which one is not in a position to know whether one is in a state with

51

phenomenal character, and indeed one makes a false judgment about whether one is. To

draw an analogy here, one might think that it is possible in some circumstances to know

that one is sober (and know that one knows it), such as, on certain occasions when one is

sober and otherwise clear minded, even though in other cases it may not be possible for

one to know that one is not sober, for example, when one reaches a certain level of

drunkenness, even when in that state one falsely judges that one is sober. It is common to

believe that the circumstances that one finds oneself in can alter one’s ability to know

things. Typically these circumstances are thought to consist in the way the world is

around one. However, in the cases I am considering, we can see that the state that one’s

mind is in can alter one’s ability to know things and one’s ability to discriminate between

the obtaining of different situations. On this view, one need not advocate epistemically

modesty—at least all the time. Sometimes we may not be able to tell whether we are in a

state with phenomenal character, but sometimes we can tell and we do know. This view is

argued for in more detail in Macpherson (2010b).

My view lacks enough modesty vis-à-vis introspection to align it with the

common-kind view, though it is more modest than the traditional versions of that view.

According to my view, there could be type (1) hallucinations. It is possible for one to be

having a perceptual experience—be in a state with phenomenal character—and know it,

and yet one may merely be hallucinating. This secures commitment to the common-kind

theory of perception. Yet, on my view, there can also be type (2) hallucinations, for one

can be in a position where one doesn’t know by introspection alone whether or not one is

in a state with phenomenal character. Like both the traditional common-kind view and

disjunctivism, my position also allows for there to be type (3) and type (4) hallucinations.

However, it does not face the pressure that the common-kind view faced with respect to

these hallucinations. My view is not committed to the idea that if one paid enough

attention or was careful enough in introspection one should be able, when having such

hallucinations, to realize that that is what they are. My view also shares a modesty with

the traditional common-kind views, that disjunctivism lacks, namely, the need not to

assume that we do ever perceive the world rather than hallucinate it. The view is also

52

modest inasmuch as it need not assume that any type of hallucination is not possible. All

are possible according to this view and that, I believe, is a reason to recommend it.26

I leave the reader to consider the common-kind view, disjunctivism, and my own

view, which I take to be a new variant of the common-kind view, and the four kinds of

hallucination I have discussed in this essay, and to weigh the reasons for deciding

between the theoretical positions outlined herein.

6 Conclusion

This is an interesting time to be conducting research on the nature of perception

and hallucination. Within philosophy, disjunctivism, a view opposing the dominant

common-‐kind theories, is being increasingly worked out and articulated. The debate

and disagreement between the two camps is becoming clearer. How can we make

further progress in deciding between these two views? It is time for scientists to

become familiar with this debate and to start to think about the disjunctive

conception of hallucination. They should consider all possible sorts of hallucinations

in their reflections on what their empirical data show. In addition, I believe that they

should think about whether the philosophers are right in their claim that there is no

way to empirically test between the common-‐kind theory and disjunctivism, or their

respective conceptions of hallucination. Scientists in the past have disproved many

long-‐standing philosophical claims with ingenious experimentation, although I

doubt that it is possible in this case. Within psychology itself, empirical work on the

brain mechanisms underlying hallucination proceeds apace with the invention and

spread of the latest scanning techniques. Will scientists discover further conceptions

of hallucinations that will have an impact on philosophical theorizing? That remains

26 Instances of when type (2) hallucinations might actually arise, namely in Anton’s syndrome—a syndrome in which people who are blind claim that they can see—which is usually classified as a monothematic delusion, are given and discussed at length in Macpherson (2010b).

53

to be seen, but it seems to me to be a serious possibility. I hope that this volume will

accelerate the pace of research on these important and fascinating topics.

The essays in this book continue various strands of the debate that I have

outlined in this essay. An overview of the specific contents of those essays forms the

following chapter of this volume.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Clare Batty, Jon Bird and Dimitris Platchias for their helpful

comments on drafts of this essay.

References

Brewer, B (2008) “How to Account for Illusion” in A. Haddock and F.

Macpherson (eds.) Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Chand, P. K. and Murthy, P. (2007) “Understanding a Strange Phenomenon:

Lilliputian Hallucinations”, German Journal of Psychiatry, 10: 21-‐4.

Crane, H. D. and Piantanida, T. P (1983) "On Seeing Reddish Green and

Yellowish Blue", Science, 221: 1078-‐80.

Crick, F. and Koch, C. (1998) “Consciousness and Neuroscience”, Cerebral

Cortex, 8:97–107.

Dow, N. W. (1962) “Why Afterimages are not Seen in Normal Circumstances”,

Nature, 196: 1143—5

Dretske, F. (1995) Naturalizing the Mind, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

54

Fish, W. (2008) “Disjunctivism, Indistinguishability and the Nature of

Hallucination”, in A. Haddock and F. Macpherson (eds.) Disjunctivism: Perception,

Action and Knowledge, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fish, W. (2009) Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion, New York: Oxford

University Press.

Haddock, A. and Macpherson, F. (2008a) (eds.) Disjunctivism: Perception,

Action, Knowledge, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haddock, A. and Macpherson, F. (2008) "Introduction: Varieties of

Disjunctivism", in A. Haddock and F. Macpherson (eds.) Disjunctivism: Perception,

Action Knowledge, Oxford University Press.

Haldane, J. (1993) "Mind-‐World Identity Theory and the Anti-‐Realist Challenge", in J. Haldane and C. Wright (eds.) Reality, Representation and Projection, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haldane, J. and Wright, C. (1993) "Introduction", in J. Haldane and C. Wright (eds.) Reality, Representation and Projection, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hawley, K. and Macpherson, F. (2011) (eds.) The Admissible Contents of Experience, Wiley-‐Blackwell.

Lewis, D. (1980) “Veridical Hallucination and Prosthetic Vision”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 58(3): 239-‐249.

Lycan, W. (1996) Consciousness and Experience, Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.

Macpherson, F. (2010a) "Impossible Figures", in E. B. Goldstein (ed.) the SAGE Encyclopedia of Perception, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Macpherson F. (2010b) "A Disjunctive Theory of Introspection: A Reflection on Zombies and Anton's Syndrome", Philosophical Issues, 20(1): 226-‐265.

55

Macpherson, F. (2011) “The Admissible Contents of Experience” in K. Hawley and F. Macpherson (eds.) The Admissible Contents of Experience, Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-‐Blackwell.

Macpherson, F. (2012) "Cognitive Penetration of Colour Experience: Rethinking the Issue in Light of an Indirect Mechanism", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 84 (1): 24-‐62.

Macpherson, F. and Platchais, D. (forthcoming) Representationalism, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Martin, M. G. F. (2004) “The Limits of Self-‐Awareness”, Philosophical Studies, 120: 37-‐89.

Martin, M. G. F. (2006) “On Being Alienated”, in T. S. Gendler and J. Hawthorne (eds.) Perceptual Experience, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McDowell, J. (1994) Mind and World, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Nagel, T (1974) “What Is It Like To Be a Bat?”, The Philosophical Review, 83 (4): 435-‐50.

Pautz, A. (2011) “What Are The Contents Of Experiences?”, in K. Hawley and

F. Macpherson eds. The Admissible Contents of Experience, Chichester, West Sussex:

Wiley-‐Blackwell.

Pritchard, D. (2008) “Sensitivity, Safety, and Anti-‐Luck Epistemology”, in J.

Greco (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Scepticism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Siegel, S. (2006) “Which Properties Are Represented in Perception?”, in T.

Szabo Gendler and J. Hawthorne (eds.) Perceptual Experience, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Travis, C. (2004) “The Silence of the Senses”, Mind, 113 (449): 59-‐94.

56

Tye, M. (1995) Ten Problems of Consciousness, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Date post:	01-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangkien
View:	236 times
Download:	1 times

Macpherson Hallucination Introduction web.docx copy

Documents